‘Development’ vs Development

Published on January 11, 2006 By Paul Bourne In Writing

By Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc. (pending), BSc. (Hons.)

“Poor people have to meet the increasing price of foodstuffs whose extra cost does not necessarily mean an increase in nutritional value; indeed in many cases much of the food in advanced societies is losing its food value.”
Andrew Webster, 1970, p.16

Webster’s sociological perspective clearly shows that the disadvantaged within our societies are continuously confronted with the situation of having to meet the rising cost of food with modest economic power, and this they must address without a simultaneously increase in the quality of the items that they consume. This position, however, was written prior to the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) that was recommended by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the 1970s/1980s as the required pathway for Third World countries to alleviate many of their economic ills including poverty. The Jamaican government embarked on the measures as were prescribed by the IMF and the realities are still present in the society (Anderson, P. and Michael Witter, 1991). These socio-economic and political realities form basis upon which the issue of development is present in this paper.

After the first phase of the SAP that began in the late 1970s to early 1980s, prices of food rose significantly to the point where the poor became poorer, widespread unemployment affect the economic base of many poor Jamaican families, and subjective poverty became a real phenomenon that occurred thereafter (Anderson and Witter, 1991:1). In the same period, government was moving away from a welfare type state which was made for compounding the problems of many poor families. The issue of the SAP affected mainly innercity people in Jamaica who were unable to structure their position as they are not owners of factors of production. The results were squalor, high unemployment, the erosion of values, and unabated murders that began to live among residents of communities.

“Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they belong. Their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities.”
(Townsend 1979, p.31)

Townsend’s outlook was a synthesis of Jamaican poor and their socio-economic realities. Prior to the SAP in the 1980s, when many people in Jamaica were below the poverty line, now (post 1980s), the situation has even worsen significantly to the position where many people are not living ordinarily, and properly and may be termed as inadequate subsistence existence. Few Jamaicans need any formal introduction on communities such as Southside, Downtown-Kingston, Payne Land, off Spanish Town Road, St. Andrew, in regards to the sociological problems that those residents experience on an ongoing basis. The issue of periodic gun violence, social deprivation, economic deprivation, and psychological segregation, are just some of the dilemmas that we are aware to which the people of those areas continually face. Therefore, Townsend’s theorizing offers an explanation for the social deprivation of many Jamaicans and in the same construct he forwards a cure. He notes that resources are needed to tackle some of the situations that are experienced by the poor. From this reality arises the issue of social development of communities in Jamaica.

The caring for residents in Southside, Central Kingston and Payne Land to name but two innercity communities in Jamaica has everything to do with the security of Jamaica. In that, those people who are mainly affected by insecurity are the poorest, innercity residents, in this case reside in close proximity to the harbour/ports and airport in Downtown, Kingston, which is the nation’s hub of economic activities. As such, any civil uprising by those residents will affect the entire island of Jamaica. This situation indicates that helping the development of those and similar communities strengthens the modernity/development of the people therein and by extension Jamaicans.

Low education, social deprivation, lack of economic opportunities, low self-esteem, and a high teenage pregnancy, inadequacies of information, poor infrastructure and conflict mismanagement are just some of the issues that people of innercity communities in Jamaica experience. Those situations need to be address with immediacy as any delay for the future may result in civil unrest similar to that of Haiti. Policy makers and decision-makers need to understand that those issues bar modernity and development and speak to social incivility of any modern nation. Undoubtedly, those issues bar the stride of any policy that is geared towards economic growth and-or development. As such, this paper seeks to provide a guide as to an understanding of development, that we may be able to effectively utilize the technique to address modernity/development of communities across the Jamaican topology.

Development has taken on a new representation in the last few decades (post1980s). Traditionally, this phenomenon was primarily economic. From the perspective of Professor Todaro (2000), development envelopes social, political and economic changes in peoples lives. However, Adam Smith, founder of the classical school, believes that industrialization owes itself to the general nature of economic progress and particular causes of capitalistic development (The Keynesian Theory of Economic Development by Kurihara, 1959:13). He believes that development is possible through technological progress of capital and by laissez-faire system (the free market – “Individualistic Capitalism”). Smith’s perspective appears one-sided and presents a narrow focus of a phenomenon that has expanded beyond the classical economics theorizing. The new construct of development must encompasses every facet of man’s existence.

Kurihara (1959, p.14) cites that, “This proposition of Adam Smith anticipates Keynes’s retrospection that the slow rate of progress in the pre-capitalistic period was due to two retarding factors, namely, (a) ‘the remarkable absence of important technical improvements’ and (

‘the failure of capital to accumulate.” Freidrich List (Kurihara, 1959, p.15) is another advocate of industrialization through “economic nationalism in general and through protectionism in particular.” Kurihara (1959, p. 15) writes that, “His [Freidrich] theory of economic development still has a powerful appeal to present-day underdeveloped economies that are politically independent but economically dominated by advanced economies.” Based on Kurihara’s proposition of Freidrich’s perspective, development was influenced by political system, cultural change and by extension governance.

Karl Marx’s theorizing on economic development is interpreted within the construct of ‘economic interpretation of history’ and ‘the motivating forces of capitalistic development’. The latter perspective of Marx concurs with Adam Smith’s theorizing on development. Marx further his theorizing beyond that of Smith’s perspective when he that, “[Marx] ‘materialistic’ conceptual of historical evolution, according to which economic institutions, while they are products of social evolution, are themselves capable of influencing the course of social progress.” Although Marx partially supports Smith’s theorizing on economic development, he ventures into non-economic explanations of development. He, however, had a casual and distant relationship with the sociological factors.

John Maynard Keynes (born 1883 and died 1946) advocates some of a Classical school perspective on development. Kurihara (1959) purports that, “Keyness suggested that the future rate of economic progress would depend on (a) ‘our power to control population’, (

‘our willingness to entrust to science the direction of those matters which are properly the concern of science,’(c) ‘our determination to avoid wars and civil dissensions’, (d) the rate of accumulation of fixed by the margin between production and our consumption.”(Kurihara, 1959, p.19). Of the factors that Keynes theorizes, only one is economic. Based on Kurihara’s writings, ‘our power to control population’ is governance and political, ‘our determination to avoid wars’ is social, cultural and political, and as such indicates that economic progress is highly improbable without human, social, political and cultural change and development.

Professor Sir Arthur Lewis, a Caribbean scholar and Noble laureate for his contribution to the economics profession, in ‘The Review of Black Political Economy (1989)’ reviewed by James B. Steward wrote that, “Racial Conflict and Economic Development presents deceptively incisive analyses of how race affects a variety of phenomenon including discrimination, colonialism, entrepreneurship, dual labour markets, and the international economic order.” Lewis’ theorizing was primarily economic and so he built his model within an economic construct. He failed just like the other Classical economists to divulge a position on cultural, social and psychological factors in regards to development. Lewis a positivist was highly concerned with building scientific model. He used time series and descriptive statistics to provide the blocks upon which he derived his theorizing.

“Development economics is the study of how human economic circumstances change over time and how they can be made to change.” (Hogendorn, 1987:1, pp.1). This perspective by Hogendorn supports the traditionalists’ position that development is solely economic. They argue that growth is the primary cause of development. Growth is broadly defined as an increase in output or income and the term development speaks to structural, institutional, and qualitative changes that expand a country’s capabilities. The mechanism used to measure this concept is gross national product. As such, the Classical economists (traditionalists) believe that growth can lead to development. They also suppose that development is not possible with growth. This position advocates that production is growth but infrastructural change is development. This idea supports pollution, deforestation, degradation, and depletion of the environment in support of development. Such a stance has given rise to various advocates of sustainable development as against economic development. With this new thrust, the scope of development encompasses the environment; social, economic and political factors in addition to the new emphasis on the quality of peoples’ live in the future.

King (2001) in Social and Economic Studies wrote that, “The budgetary allocations to the health sector also have implications for social equity.” It is clear from Dr. King’s postulation that government spending on health care influences the quality of life of peoples within a country. This determinant of the quality of life is not limited to health but spans education, defence, political system and governance. King (2001) forwarded that position that, “One fifth of the education [Jamaica] budget is being used on tertiary education, which does not benefit the lowest quintile.” Although King’s finding was as stated, the actuality is that the quality of life of peoples who attain tertiary educational institutions and by extension the society benefits there from. It appears that Dr. King is incognizant of the multiplier effect of single dollar spent on educating one university graduate. Milton Freidman (1955) in an article titled The Role of Government in Education posited that:
“A stable and democratic society is impossible without widespread acceptance of some common set of values and without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of most citizens. Education contributes to both. In consequence, the gain from the education of a child accrues not only to the child or to his parents but to other members of the society; the education of my child contributes to other people's welfare by promoting a stable and democratic society. Yet it is not feasible to identify the particular individuals (or families) benefited or the money value of the benefit and so to charge for the services rendered. There is therefore a significant "neighborhood effect."

Friedman’s (1955) position, therefore, contradicts Dr. King’s (2001) stance. If democracy is highly improbable with a minimum degree of literacy, then public spending on education in and of itself is a factor of improvements in the quality of peoples’ lives. This position concurs with noble prize winner Professor Michael Todaro’s (2000) three (3) objectives of development. Dr. Friedman in his article “The Role of Government in Education” argued that the value of educating a child does not end with the individual but extends to the society a factor Dr. King failed to “ingredientized” in his position forwarded earlier.

Professor Todaro credited Adam Smith for being the first development economists (Michael Todaro, 2000). He wrote that, “his Wealth of Nations [Adam Smith], published in 1776, was the first treatise on economic development, the systematic study of the problems and processes of economic development in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.” Although Friedman lauded Smith for his pioneer work he cited that “I disagree with this viewpoint” (Todaro, 2000: p. 7). He [Todaro], although an economist, believed that development spans a plethora of other factors beyond the traditionalists view on the subject. The distinguished modern economist cited that, “there are non-economic variables, values, attitudes and institutions” (Todaro, 2000: pp. 13). It is this perspective that will forge shift away from the economic stance of development to a sociological perspective.

According to Musgrave (1970) who edited “A Model for the Analysis of the Development of the English Educational System from 1860” by P. W. Musgrave wrote, “the development of the educational system of a country is one specific but central example of social change’. If educational system is a mechanism of “social change, then spending thereon must increase of quality of the human capital to society. Any change in the social position of an individual’s life transforms his/her social status – development. It is through the educational system that a society transforms itself. This socio-political transformation is a change in the degree of development of this society. Professor Munroe (2000) in “Introduction to Politics” forwarded the position that democracy and governance are critical indicators of development of a society.

Dr. Orville Taylor, a sociologist, argues that social institutions are yardstick in measuring the development of a society. Therefore, both distinguished academics have forwarded positions that clearly indicate that development goes beyond the traditional definition of development. Professor Todaro in “Economic Development” (Todaro, 2000: 1 and 2) outlined this position.

Sociologists agree that school, church, peer group influence socialization and political institution, therefore, any modernization of the education system will enhance an improvement in the human and social capital (Haralambos et al., 1996). Education is a process of transformation and so although it may not be cost in regards to its benefits to the recipient, any value added to individual by this process therefore modernized society. This modernization is referred to as development (Munoz, 1981:1 pp.1). Munoz (1981) wrote that, “The end of World War II marked the beginning of fundamental transformations in world affairs. The defeat of the Axis powers and the devastating toll which the war had exacted on Britain and the European allies propelled the United States into a position of economic and military preeminence.” Munoz’s arguments concur with Todaro’s stance and further strengthen the position that development is multifaceted. Based on Munoz’s writings, political education, political transformation and social change are ingredients in development.

Although Dr. King’s (2001) findings revealed a particular position and it appears that his position does not support investment in tertiary education, Dr. Milton Friedman’s (1955) postulation clearly showed that there are benefits to be had from investment in education. This investment in educating a populace transforms the peoples’ social position. Any improvement in the social position of peoples’ lives influence the quality of their lives. In order to emphasize the limitedness of traditionalists approach to development, a quotation from Hogendorn will be used that summarizes that scope. According to Hogendorn (1987), “The standard measures of output and income are gross national product (GNP), gross domestic product (GDP), and national income. These tools are universally used. But there are problems with measuring output and income. Even greater difficulties beset the employment of these tools to measure well-being or satisfaction or the standard of living or to judge the “progress” of different countries.” It follows therefore that political system and governance must affect the quality of peoples’ existence. In that, a particular political system may contract the quality of peoples’ lives. The examples here are political system in Haiti. This system often times curtails education, health care and democracy that are components of development.

Rasheed (1998) in “development” wrote, “generating and sustaining high growth rates, eradicating poverty and promoting human development require deliberate far-reaching transformations that go well beyond the standard economic reform measure.” This position is shared by Professor of development economic Michael Todaro. He (later) argued that although economic progress is significant for development, development also relies on political system, social characteristics, governance, integration, investing in human development and boosting self-reliance. Although Todaro is a development economist and Rasheed a developmentalist, they converge on new approach to development as against the Classical economists (including the founder of development theory, Adam Smith). In reference to Rasheed’s position, development is simply not a simple one variable linear model (the one variable being, economic growth) but a multiple regression model of many components include human social development. When one reads Rasheed’s theorizing it may be understood that this is limited to Africa but the same was said by Todaro an American, and as supported by other nationalists in this paper. From a Caribbean perspective, Dr. Marie Freckleton et al (1993) wrote, “development strategies for the 1980s [included] accelerating programmes for the development of human resources in every relevant field.”

“We shall take by way of illustration here probably the most influential model, propounded by Walt Rostow (1962). In it emphasis on the psycho-cultural prerequisites of development . . .” (Vicky Randall et al 1998: pp. 24). Rostow’s theorizing, Modernization Theory, is a clear position that development is primarily not economic but multi-faceted, and that it includes psychological as well as cultural factors as ingredients.

Although Rostow’s theorizing clearly showed “sociological thinking”, modernization theory showed the stages through which an economic travels before development is possible. Those stages are indication that development is not a one linear model as purported by Adam Smith and other Classical Theorists. The classical school’s theorizing can be contrasted with contemporary developmentalists’ perspective on the issue of development. John Toye (1987) a contemporary developmentalist wrote that, “It is important not to confuse economic growth, the expansion of the measured output of goods and services, with development.” He continued that, “For example, output can be produced by the severe exploitation of labour – the payment of mere subsistence wages, bad health and safety conditions and the unfair treatment of workers – with the resulting profits being channeled to private bank accounts in foreign tax havens.” The perspective forwarded by developmentalists is wider in scope of the subject matter than forwarded by classicalists or neo-classicalists. This is so because subsistent living, poor health and unsafe environmental conditions may result in economic growth.

Adam Smith was one of the scholars who wrote on determinants of development and their influence on peoples’ quality of life. Smith and other economists within the Classical School theorize development only within the construct of economics. They argue that development is primary a function of economic growth. Economic growth was the creation of increase in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a country over a previous period (i.e. that is usually 12-month). From that School of thought, economic growth is the force behind any development of a society. The transformation of any society beyond its past is accounted for by the saving of resources from economic growth. Therefore, economic development is the transformation of the base of an economy. This is attained through physical infrastructural changes in that society. The Classical School believed that economic growth increases standard of living of the people. This is accomplish by the peoples being able to afford more of the same goods and-or better quality items. Furthermore, the Classical Theorists on the issue of economic development believed merely that this was an extension of conventional economic theory that equated "development" with growth and industrialization. Because of that construct, Latin American, Asian and African countries were seen mostly "underdeveloped" countries, i.e. "primitive" versions of European nations that could, with time, "develop" the institutions and standards of living of Europe and North America.

Economic development, however, is significantly different from that of economic growth. In that, “Development in human society is a many sided process. At the level of the individual it implies increase in skill and capacity ………… and material well being”. Implicit in that definition is the accumulation of the surplus of individual firms. In order for this surplus to be meaningful as a human indicator of development and large enough to ensure the survival of firms and improve the standard of living of those employed by the firm, the surplus cannot be consumed after a day. If this is done, then the standard of living of the workforce will decline and this decline is concomitant with the lack of development in the domestic economy.

Economic growth in some economies can then be associated with immizerization, in that economic growth may result in misery. This occurs when economic growth causes a high proportion of the population to become impoverished while a smaller proportion accumulates substantial wealth. As such, this growth may lead to impoverishment of a sector or some sectors within the economy but this cannot be the case for economic development implies the improvement in human capital that is not important for growth.

On the other hand, the Modern Economists believe that development is broader than economic growth. Professor Michael Todaro purported that there are three (3) objectives of development. Firstly, they are “increase the availability and widen the distribution of basic life – such as food, shelter, health, and protection. Secondly, to raise the levels of living, including, in addition to higher incomes, the better jobs, better education, and greater attention to cultural and humanistic values, all of which will serve not only to enhance material well-being also to generate greater individual and national self-esteem. Finally, he purported the expansion of social choices.” Based on Professor Todaro’s position on development, this includes the improvement in the quality of life of people through social, political and economic determinants.

Haq et al (1987) in Human Development, Adjustment and Growth wrote, “The objective of development is people. Yet an analysis of the development process over the last four decades will show that one of the major obstacles to economic, social and political progress in many developing countries is the insufficient attention given to the human dimension of development” (Haq et al. 1987: 3, pp. 21). Haq analytic argument is the focal point of this paper, human development as a tool of levels of development. When one analyses Haq’s writings (Haq et al., 1987: pp. 22 – 28), the World Bank’s World Development Reports have shown that central government expenditures on health and education have declined in low developing countries between 1980-83 and 1985-86. Could that explain why many peoples within developing countries lack the food necessary for an active, healthy life? (Haq et al., 1987: pp. 29).

Therefore, the issue is can there be development with human development? According to Haq et al (1987: pp. 33), “The first session of the Roundtable on Money and Finance in Istanbul in September 1983 declared that, solutions which do not take into the human resources building into account will fail to provide an enduring answer to the world’s financial and monetary crisis. Until human resources needed for substantial economic growth are developed, real development will remain a dream.” With that profound and analytic argument by Haq et al (1987), that will set the premise upon which this paper forwards a theorizing that human development begins at the community level.

Social /Community development

Development is simply not a one sided conceptualization that looks at the determinants of economic development but as was rightfully highlighted by the Human Development Report (1999), people is the core of this construct. This perspective speaks to a dichotomous phenomenon which on one hand is the human resource and on the other is the material resource. Those resources are continuously fashioned and oftentimes modernized community members without which development would only be a terminology. With that foundation as is forwarded by the United Nation Development Programme, donor institutions are to ensure that their objectives are such that they benefit the residents of a particular topology instead of meeting internal mission statement that excludes the people. Therefore, this section of the paper will address the aspect of development from within the perspective of community.

In order to create modernity of communities in particular in developing countries, the issues of health and education are important components. According The World Bank (2000) investment in health and education is a positive step in address poverty and “… gender-sensitive investment in human capital now not only will improve the environment in which future population will be born, but may also lengthen the internal …” Development, therefore, must tackle socio-political and economic determinants while evaluating and assessing the importance of community residents in the design process in an effort to mobilize the people to effect that modernity. This position is further sanctioned by the International Conference on Population Development (ICPD) that was held in Cairo in 1994. A statement that was made after the completion of the conference is, “adopted a program[me] of action calling for new approaches to address the relationships between population and sustainable development.”(ICPD, 1994).

According to two anthropologist “when development flounders, self-criticism is often limited to an acceptance that insufficient attention has been paid to the recipients of aid. Implicit in this, however, is a tendency to root explanation in the culture of the recipients.” (Crewe and E. Harrison, 1998). The arguments forward by Crewe and Harrison recognize that development is a two sided process, and one that does not limit itself limited financial aid to the recipient but the readiness of the client to transform his/her socio-economic reality. Within this construct is the socio-political dynamics of community arrangements. In that, reformers of community development cannot only assistance the process of social transformation of those topologies with offering aid in the form of readiness skills of the residents.

People are simply not machine that can be programmed to follow simple and-or complex task to the end but instead they are social being who continuously change their desires based on internal and external stimuli. Therefore, offering financial aid in the form of educational resources and other physical infrastructure in and of themselves will not transfer into social and-or community development. This dynamism was agreed on by Crewe and Harrison (1991: 16), when they write that, “. . . modernization theories and that ‘developmental anthropologists choose to remain blind to the historically constituted character of development as a cultural system.”

In deconstructing the developmental needs of communities, external institutions are to understand the cultural dynamics of the residents and their readiness to changing what obtains. CBOs/NGOs need to appreciate that the process of socialization and difficulties in the resocialization process of individuals, is a difficult a pain staking process. Despite the seemingly good intentions of social development organizations to transform the collective landscape of communities, education which is an agent of change does not begin and end in a day. In order to foster human development, readiness of the residents of communities is paramount in the non-linear equation of societal development. Crew and E. Harrison (1998) summarizes this succinctly when they write that, “the idea that development involves evolution of one sort or another has a complex heritage, reflecting some very different political perspective.”

The issue of community governance is one issue that can easily derail any form of community development. In 2004 and beyond, the issue of civil governance in Jamaica plays a critical role in social development. There are persons who reside inside and-or outside a community who are able to thwart that area’s development if they will not directly benefit. This is not limited to urban Jamaica. As such, human development within communities is not a simple task. The process of a community’s development is complex web. All the various facets must be unwoven in order to produce that success story of development that is often the end desire of funding institutions.

Although the field of development has drastically changed since the 1950s because of new data from statistical analyses, this process was further changed in the 1980s. One of the difficulties that still exist in development science is the best fit model for community development. The issue is further compounded with we add innercity topologies, and developing countries in the model. This paper forwards the position that the best fit model for communities’ development in Jamaica is a model that includes all the elements of human development that does not interferes with the socio-political dynamics of the communities in addition to having a high people readiness for social transformation. Crewe and Harrison (1998: 192) write the ideal two sentences that summarize this section, “projects may not be the only way in which such ideologies are created. Education, literature, and the media, for example, undoubtedly play a part in rebuilding ideas that retain currency in development.”

Reference

Anderson, P. and Michael Witter. The Distribution of the Social Cost of Jamaica’s Structural Adjustment 1977 – 1989. University of the West Indies, Press.

Booth, David. 1994. Rethinking social development, theory, research and practice. (Edited by David Booth) Longman Scientific and Technical. Longman Group Limited. Longman House, Burnt Mill, Harlow

Crewe, E and Elizabeth Harrison (1998). Whose development? An Ethnography of Aid. Zed Books Limited, London.

Findlay, Ronald. 1989. W. Arthur Lecture: National and Global Perspectives on Economic Development – The two models of Arthur Lewis. National Economic Association and the Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy of Clark College.

Haralambos, M and Holborn, M. 1996. Sociology Themes and Perspectives. Collin Education: An Imprint of Harper Collin Publisher, Fourth Edition.

Hogendorn, Jan S. 1987. Economic Development. Harper and Row, Publishers, New York

Human Development Report 1999. United Nations Development Programme. Oxford University Press

King, Damien. 2001. The Evolution of Structural Adjustment and Stabilization Policy in Jamaica. Social and Economic Studies, volume 50, No. 1. Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, University of the West Indies, Jamaica.

Kirdar, Uner. 1987. Adjustment and Growth with Human Development: A Review. Human Development, Adjustment and Growth (edited by Khadij Haq and Uner Kirdar). The North South Roundtable, P.O. Box 2006, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Kurihara, Kenneth K. 1959. The Keynesian Theory of Economic Development. Columbia University Press, New York

Kuznets, Simon. 1989. Economic development, the family, and income distribution. Selected essays. The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Lalta, Stanley and Marie Freckleton (Editors). 1993. Caribbean Economic Development, the First Generation. Ian Randle Publishers Limited.

Munroe, Trevor. 1993. An Introduction to Politics. Lectures for First Year Students. Canoe Press, University of the West Indies, 1a Aqueduct Flats, Kingston 7, Jamaica, WI.

O’Donnell, Mike (1997). Introduction to Sociology. 4Th Edition. Thomas Nelson and sons Ltd. Nelson House, Mayfield Road, Walton-on-Thomas, Surrey KT12 5PL. U.K.

Randall, Vicky and Robin Theobald. 1998. Political Change and Underdevelopment. A Critical Introduction to Third World Politics. Second Edition. Macmillan Press Limited.

Rasheed, Sadiz. 1998. Development, Europe and Africa: The search for a new partnership, Volume 41, No.4, December 1998. Society for International Development

Stewart, James B. 1989. Book Reviews. Racial Conflict and Economic Development. The Review of Black Political Economy. National Economic Association and the Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy of Clark College.

Todaro, Michael. 2000. Economic Development. Seventh Edition. Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. New York.

Dalzell-Ward, A. 1974. A textbook of Health Education. Tavistock Publications Limited. 11 New Fetter Lane, London. EC 4P 4EE.

Friedman, Milton. 1955. The Role of Government in Education. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1173402/posts (published on 07/17/2004 4:04:55 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis, viewed on February 27, 2005)

Comments

No one has commented on this article. Be the first!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!